Brady named to NFL 100 All-Time team

[Deus Irae]

Maybe I'm missing something because I wasn't aware they were picking the top 10 best of any player type but the "greatest" players in NFL history. To me this implies the best during each era/decade of the NFL. They are picking who the greatest players were in the 40s and 50s era, and then in the 60s and 70s, and so on. You can't do it any other way because it just isn't possible given some of the things you mentioned but also rules, equipment, modes of transportation, schedules, etc.

I really haven't been watching the shows so maybe I misunderstood the intent of the "greatest," but the mention of NFL history implies to me it is across the entire time spectrum and not a comparison across time.

Doing decade players leaves the problem of players who split their greatness among two decades.

 

[venecol]

Flutie was not good enough to be a successful nfl ab

Yea Flutie wasn't batsh*t crazy, but why are you bringing up AB in a thread about QBs?

 

[Ring 6]

"How instrumental" is never going to be measurable, though, because you're laying too many assumptions on top of one another. Was Peyton Manning more instrumental to the Colts winning than Brady to the Patriots, and was that a product of superior talent or some other reason which should not be counted but needs to be taken into account? The world will never know.

There's just no way to get an accurate measure. The best we can do is to try being consistent and objective with our individual logic.

But it’s all an opinion any way. Nothing is accurately measurable.
Manning and Brady aren’t comparable because the levels of success are so far apart.
Montana’s 4 rings out weight Bradshaw because it’s obvious Montana was more instrumental in those 4 championships than Bradshaw was to his.
It also addresses the “dilfer won a championship” part of the conversation

There can be no hard and fast rule but when you include winning you have to look at how much the player contributed to it.

 

[Ring 6]

Yea Flutie wasn't batsh*t crazy, but why are you bringing up AB in a thread about QBs?

Yeah very annoying my phone changes QB to ab or an

 

[venecol]

Doing decade players leaves the problem of players who split their greatness among two decades.

True, I wondered about that. It seems they looked at how that particular player dominated that particular decade. Coincidently most of these QBs played most of their productive years in one decade instead of 50/50 or so. For example, Elway played from 83 to 98 and was named 1st Team ADT in the 1990s (he lost 3 SBs in the 80s and won 2 in the 90s). I'm sure its not an exact science.

 

[Deus Irae]

But it’s all an opinion any way. Nothing is accurately measurable.
Manning and Brady aren’t comparable because the levels of success are so far apart.
Montana’s 4 rings out weight Bradshaw because it’s obvious Montana was more instrumental in those 4 championships than Bradshaw was to his.
It also addresses the “dilfer won a championship” part of the conversation

There can be no hard and fast rule but when you include winning you have to look at how much the player contributed to it.

We've got a nationwide debate about whether Brady is more important to the Patriots winning than Belichick, and they're both on the Patriots. So the notion that you (general, not specific) can decide about the contribution levels of players from different teams is a fiction.

So, sure, weight your personal evaluation however you want. Is the mythical "win contribution" more important than SBs won, or "arm talent", or "opponent fear", or "big game play", or whatever? That's your own call to make, obviously. But, in the end, only my formula is right (said everyone who's ever done these debates, whether consciously or otherwise).

 

[jimnance]

I know 8 Patriots made the list but can't find it. Can someone post it? Thanks
See if I can guess, not in order,but
Brady,Hannah,Haynes,Law,Tippett,
Gronk,AdamV( if he counts as a Pat),
Moss(see Adam V).
I would include Nick B. but I know he's listed as a Fin. He played just as long for the Pats tho and was the best in the league at his position. Stupid Sullivans.

 

[venecol]

I see BaconBit is throwing out genius ratings like there's no tomorrow. We need to consider it a badge of honor to receive a genius rating from the Forum Resident Genius (FRG). LMFAO, too easy.

Pretty sure the FRG had Brady going in the 1st round in the 2000 draft, the rest is just blah blah blah drivel.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

@Ice_Ice_Brady whats your updated top 10?

I wonder if it's just a coincidence that most of the shortlist QBs named are members of the NFL All-Decades teams (ADT): bolded are locks imo, not sure if #10 is one of the old guys or Staubach. Don't think any of the non-ADT guys on the bottom get in.

Sammy Baugh (1940s ADT): 2 NFL Titles
Sid Luckman (1940s ADT): 4 NFL Titles
Otto Graham (1950s ADT): 3 NFL Titles
Bobby Lane (1950s ADT): 3 NFL Titles
Norm Van Brocklin (1950s ADT): 2 NFL Titles
Bart Starr (1960s ADT): 3 NFL Titles + 2 SBs
Johnny Unitas (1960s ADT): 2 NFL Titles + 1 SB
Terry Bradshaw (1970s ADT): 4 SBs
Roger Staubach (1970s ADT): 2 SBs
Joe Montana (1980s ADT): 4 SBs
Dan Fouts (1980s ADT)
John Elway (1990s ADT): 2 SBs
Brett Favre (1990s ADT): 1 SB
Tom Brady (2000s ADT): 6 SBs
Peyton Manning (2000s ADT): 2 SBs
Joe Namath (1-0 SB)
Fran Tarkenton (0-3 SB)
Dan Marino (0-1 SB)
Troy Aikman (3-0 SB)
Steve Young (1-0 SB)
Drew Brees (1-0 SB)
Aaron Rodgers (1-0 SB)

I'm kind of on the same track as @venecol on who I think the top 10 will be, and I also used the All-Decade teams and 75th Anniversary teams as huge factors.

Confirmed

1. Brady
2. Montana

Other 75th Anniversary Team (virtually confirmed)

3. Graham
4. Baugh
5. Unitas

These 5 have to be absolute locks.

After that, I think the next two, based on a combination of individual awards, championships, iconic moments, etc, are making it without question.

6. Starr
7. Manning

----Lock Line--- 1-7 are locks, IMO; 8-10 are Wild Cards

Wild Card Favorites (Final Three)

I'm going with Bradshaw, Luckman and Elway, but I think for overall strength all five the next guys are extremely close and I think it's really a toss-up.

8. Bradshaw. I didn't have him on my first list, but due to his easy inclusion as 70s all-decade first team, I've changed my mind. Though many would pick Staubach as the better QB than Bradshaw, consider that Bradshaw has a regular season MVP and two all-pros (Staubach was never all-pro or MVP); that's before you get into the postseason head to head advantage.
9. Luckman. 4 championships, 6 all-pros, MVP. He was arguably the first superstar quarterback and not that far from Baugh, who is a top 4.
10. Elway. He is the most volatile QB in terms of ranking position. I expect he runs the gamut from top 4 to lower than 15. It may have to do with how the voting is tabulated. His career is filled with alternative takes; gutsy winner, weak conference sacrificial lamb; amazing talent, crappy passer; champion, can't win it on his own.

Other Wild Cards (Final 3) In the Mix

Alternative 1. Layne. He is extremely deserving; to put in perspective, he won one less championship than Bradshaw but didn't have the Steel Curtain defense and was all-pro 6 times. Along with Graham's Browns, Layne was big for popularizing football as a major sport in the 1950s.

Alternative 2. Staubach. I originally had him in my top 6 or so. I think he belongs, but I don't think he'll get top 10. He never was an all-pro (bizarre considering he was largely regarded as most talented QB or his era.) His career was pretty short as well. The big concern I have is he wasn't just crushed by Bradshaw in the all-70s team first team voted; he also tied with Stabler with 3 votes. He is on my top 10; I don't think he makes this one, though. Hope I'm wrong and he gets in over Bradshaw.

Parity Era Alternates 3/4. Brees/Rodgers. It will be interesting to see how much Rodgers and Brees get for their lack of postseason dominance. Now we are into 1X champion territory, and you take your pick of the most efficient QB of the the modern era (and default all-time) or the most prolific one. Both are SB MVPs playing in the salary cap era where multiple championships are a lot more difficult.

The argument against Brees is that had this list been done 20 years ago, Favre (king of cumulative stats at the time) would have made it and now looked like a bad pick; the argument against Rodgers is had this list been done done years ago, Young (king of efficiency stats at the time) would have made it and now looked like a bad pick. Both are torch bearers, record holders, who are really just waiting to be surpassed. I wonder if voters will see it that way.

Alternative 5. Marino. There are a lot of people who feel he is the greatest pure passer of all-time. It would be surprising if Marino makes it but not shocking.


Will Not Make Top 10

• Aikman
• Favre
• Fouts
• Namath
• Tarkenton
• Van Brocklin
• Young

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Flutie was not good enough to be a successful nfl qb

Neither was Brady.

 

[primetime]

And how would you pick the best 10 QBs ever?

However I want? I mean, I could pick them out of a hat and it would be no mors or less legitimate than whatever folks are arguing here.

 

[primetime]

Maybe I'm missing something because I wasn't aware they were picking the top 10 best of any player type but the "greatest" players in NFL history. To me this implies the best during each era/decade of the NFL. They are picking who the greatest players were in the 40s and 50s era, and then in the 60s and 70s, and so on. You can't do it any other way because it just isn't possible given some of the things you mentioned but also rules, equipment, modes of transportation, schedules, etc.

I really haven't been watching the shows so maybe I misunderstood the intent of the "greatest," but the mention of NFL history implies to me it is across the entire time spectrum and not a comparison across time.

This distinction doesn't really make sense to me... also decades are totally arbitrary periods of time.

 

[venecol]

This distinction doesn't really make sense to me... also decades are totally arbitrary periods of time.

It seems the NFL likes decades as a time period because they've been selecting ALL-Decade Teams (ADT). Of the Seven ALL-Decade Teams from 1940 to 2000s, all #1 QB and #2 QBs were shortlisted along with one #3 (from 1950). It just seems logical to me, regardless of agreement, that they've already pre-selected the candidates by selecting them as part of the ALL-Decade teams. The other 7 QBs did not make the ADTs and so I doubt they make the final cut.

National Football League All-Decade Teams - Wikipedia

 

[primetime]

It seems the NFL likes decades as a time period because they've been selecting ALL-Decade Teams (ADT). Of the Seven ALL-Decade Teams from 1940 to 2000s, all #1 QB and #2 QBs were shortlisted along with one #3 (from 1950). It just seems logical to me, regardless of agreement, that they've already pre-selected the candidates by selecting them as part of the ALL-Decade teams. The other 7 QBs did not make the ADTs and so I doubt they make the final cut.

National Football League All-Decade Teams - Wikipedia

That's fair.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Flutie was not good enough to be a successful nfl qb

Is this post for real? What is your definition of successful NFL QB? One who only wins Super Bowls?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

It seems the NFL likes decades as a time period because they've been selecting ALL-Decade Teams (ADT). Of the Seven ALL-Decade Teams from 1940 to 2000s, all #1 QB and #2 QBs were shortlisted along with one #3 (from 1950). It just seems logical to me, regardless of agreement, that they've already pre-selected the candidates by selecting them as part of the ALL-Decade teams. The other 7 QBs did not make the ADTs and so I doubt they make the final cut.

National Football League All-Decade Teams - Wikipedia

It will depend on if they consider this “the Golden age of QBs” and select 4+ QBs from last 25 years. Aka recency bias, or they would explain it that the position is more important and challenging to play now (even though that’s debatable.).

Glad the NYJFL or some kind of hype machine isn’t responsible for the picks. I personally just like “all-time” to mean all-time and hope all the eras are represented well. Feel like we have a lazy society that doesn’t want to research despite Google being a fingertip away, and I’d like to see some hissy fits when some modern guys don’t make it.

I’m shocked that not only twitter yo yos, but also the vast majority of paid pundits, claim to have an all-time list with 8 players post 1980 and two random old timers thrown in.

 

[venecol]

Maybe, but I hope not. I just can't see how they can ignore the 60s (beginning of SB era) or the 70s and 80s with all the great teams and football played back then.

If you just pick the #1s that's 7 damn good QBs right there. You could maybe argue about Elway some, but he's getting in. That only leaves 3 picks and since Manning is in, really only 2 picks from last 25 years to appease the masses. I can't see them choosing a Rodgers/Brees over Unitas/Staubach though.

 

[Ring 6]

We've got a nationwide debate about whether Brady is more important to the Patriots winning than Belichick, and they're both on the Patriots. So the notion that you (general, not specific) can decide about the contribution levels of players from different teams is a fiction.

So, sure, weight your personal evaluation however you want. Is the mythical "win contribution" more important than SBs won, or "arm talent", or "opponent fear", or "big game play", or whatever? That's your own call to make, obviously. But, in the end, only my formula is right (said everyone who's ever done these debates, whether consciously or otherwise).

What i am saying is that different QBs deserve differing credit for their teams success based ion their role and how much they are relied upon.
Regardless of what consideration you make for coaching it’s clear that Brady has been instrumental to winning on the field. Qb pkay is more important in this era than in last ones and there are voluminous examples of how Brady was the difference.
I’m not saying my criteria is right and anyone else’s is wrong, I’m just explaining my thought process.

 

[Ring 6]

Is this post for real? What is your definition of successful NFL QB? One who only wins Super Bowls?

One who has a significant career with success and longevity. Flutie won 38 games spread over 12 years and won more than 7 just once. Forget SBs he never won a playoff game.
Are you really saying you think flutie had a successful nfl career?

 

[Ring 6]

Neither was Brady.

Yeah Brady’s been quite a failure